jones wrote:
I'm factoring in the gravity of consequences yuvken, we're just looking at completely different possible outcomes. I disagree completely with the idea of state harm being limited in its nature and there are loads of examples I could give as for my reason for that. I trust the state as far as I can throw it, both because of personal experience as well as political reasons; Germany's most notable example being (proven) large right wing extremist factions in police, state attorney offices and intelligence agencies actively hindering investigations in the Bosphorus serial murder case.
Just a few days ago it came to light that German intelligence agencies weren't only doing the NSA's job in large scale surveillance but were spying on everyone themselves for more than a decade already, including EU and US citizens, NGOs like Oxfam or the WHO, the FBI and even the fucking Vatican. They were even caught having wired the phone of the foreign minister of France. The same country that did all of this somehow couldn't stop a group of three Nazis who carried out ten murders, two nailbomb attacks and more than a dozen bank robberies during a run of more than 15 years? Regardless of whether it's incompetence or maleficence, handing them even more power doesn't seem like the smartest idea. I'd say even if they had good intentions a group that abuses its means as recklessly as the BND does is more likely to cause damage by accident than actually protecting their citizens.
Reading this I wondered if you felt I'm actually endorsing more government power in general... my point was merely theoretical, in essence, "how it works", and a suggestion about where we stand now in that regard (though a very blurry one). It only says that the worse conditions are the more any liberal/individual outlook countries will have to compromise their ideal for the sake of other, less appealing ones, as that specific ideal just cannot be sustained as long as certain conditions aren't changed. The spectrum goes from "utopia", or serene conditions, worsening until absolute devastation (WW2 or such).
Your Germany example is not even the worst... it is basically like that everywhere, and in many cases worse. But what do you figure is the situation even when all is well? basically just as you described it anyway. And the security vs individual rights equilibrium in that relatively good situation already involves much intrusion
and state infringement of rights (as you described and further). Does that mean that when the status quo is shifted to the worse - circumstances become more threatening, mass terrorist attacks reality etc. - that "we won't let the government take more anti-liberal measures, as they are way beyond what we want them to be anyway"? that would be an understandable position, in the ideal level. But it might be unsustainable in the pragmatic level (as too many will die; as liberal value will mean not much, as no individual can just live safely - there's no individual freedom when individuals are fighting for their lives.
I do hope we won't need to go too far down that line - I basically feel the same as you about government power, etc. But we will be seeing some of it, make no mistake.
